# C_2019025EN.01004602.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/46

---

Action brought on 7 November 2018 — Securitec v Commission

(Case T-661/18)

(2019/C 25/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Securitec (Livange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Peuvrel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the present action for annulment formally admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action for annulment formally admissible;

| — | substantively, declare the action for annulment justified; |
| --- | --- |

—

substantively, declare the action for annulment justified;

| — | accordingly, annul the contested refusal decision of 7 September 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, annul the contested refusal decision of 7 September 2018;

| — | also annul the Commission’s decision 17 September 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

also annul the Commission’s decision 17 September 2018;

| — | make any such further orders as may be necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

make any such further orders as may be necessary;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs and other fees incurred in the context of the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs and other fees incurred in the context of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, vitiating (i) the Commission’s decision of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under call for tender No HR/R1/PR/2017/059 entitled ‘Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’ (OJ 2018/S 209-476275); and (ii) the decision of 17 September 2018 refusing to provide the applicant with the information that it had requested concerning the abovementioned call for tenders. The decision to reject the tender submitted by the applicant merely asserts that the tender did not offer the lowest price, whereas the price criterion was not the sole award criterion provided for in the tender specifications. An insufficiency of reasoning is tantamount to a failure to state reasons, and must be sanctioned by annulment of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, vitiating (i) the Commission’s decision of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under call for tender No HR/R1/PR/2017/059 entitled ‘Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’ (OJ 2018/S 209-476275); and (ii) the decision of 17 September 2018 refusing to provide the applicant with the information that it had requested concerning the abovementioned call for tenders. The decision to reject the tender submitted by the applicant merely asserts that the tender did not offer the lowest price, whereas the price criterion was not the sole award criterion provided for in the tender specifications. An insufficiency of reasoning is tantamount to a failure to state reasons, and must be sanctioned by annulment of the decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the contested decision. In this connection, the applicant argues that the lowest-price criterion was not the only one taken into account and that the successful tender had, moreover, to be regular and satisfy the requirements laid down. The applicant takes the view that the successful tenderer did not have NEDAP certification, which was nevertheless a requirement in in the tender specifications. Accordingly, the award of the contract to that company was irregular, and the contested decisions should therefore be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the contested decision. In this connection, the applicant argues that the lowest-price criterion was not the only one taken into account and that the successful tender had, moreover, to be regular and satisfy the requirements laid down. The applicant takes the view that the successful tenderer did not have NEDAP certification, which was nevertheless a requirement in in the tender specifications. Accordingly, the award of the contract to that company was irregular, and the contested decisions should therefore be annulled.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination vitiating the contested decisions, particularly in the light of the disproportionate requirement of a minimum turnover of EUR 900 000 for companies tendering for Lot No 4 in Luxembourg, and in view of the Commission’s failure to respond to the questions raised in that connection in the applicant’s letter of 28 June 2018. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination vitiating the contested decisions, particularly in the light of the disproportionate requirement of a minimum turnover of EUR 900 000 for companies tendering for Lot No 4 in Luxembourg, and in view of the Commission’s failure to respond to the questions raised in that connection in the applicant’s letter of 28 June 2018.

---